Zero-Trust enforcement for enterprise AI.
DeepInspect authorizes, redacts, or blocks every AI request inline, then writes a cryptographically signed forensic record for regulatory defense.
Four surfaces of the AI governance problem, one control plane.
The gateway sits in the request path with sub-50ms overhead, evaluates policy, and writes an evidence-grade record before the response is released.
Intelligent Security
Identity- and data-aware enforcement. Inline. Fail-closed.
Verifiable Governance
HMAC-signed forensic record for every decision.
Cost & Routing
Tier-based model routing, failover, per-token attribution.
Agent & MCP Governance
Per-tool policy and signed agent traces across every hop.
Who Owns AI Governance Liability in an Enterprise?
AI governance is a responsibility boundary. Regulators and boards want enforcement records, not dashboards.
The boundary falls on the enterprise rather than the model provider. Provider terms of service place contractual responsibility for how a model is used inside a customer environment on the customer. A regulatory inquiry about a specific AI decision reaches the CISO and the compliance officer, and the durable answer is a runtime record of how each AI request was handled together with the policy version in effect at the time.
Enterprises own:
Each obligation maps to an operational record only the enterprise can produce. Regulatory exposure resolves when the enterprise shows the specific decisions the system made and the policy versions in effect. Audit outcomes improve when the auditor reads records that each carry a per-record cryptographic signature verifiable on its own. Breach narratives hold together when every AI interaction in the sequence carries its own integrity proof. Board accountability follows the pattern of financial controls, signed attestations rather than best-effort summaries.
Governance requires reconstruction of who accessed what data and why a decision was allowed.
The risk lives in ungoverned AI usage inside your enterprise.
Point your AI client at the gateway. Nothing else changes.
Enforcement activates gradually from observe mode to enforce mode, per application and per data class. Application code stays intact.
Product
Inline enforcement between callers and models.
Identity-aware policy, deterministic evaluation, fail-closed by default. Sub-50ms overhead in the request path.
Forensics
Signed record for every AI decision.
Reconstruct any interaction. Verify integrity per record.
Architecture
Deterministic policy engine, default-deny posture.
Deploys inline. Payload-agnostic. Provider-neutral.
< 50ms
Gateway overhead
100%
Decisions signed
6+
Providers supported
HMAC
Per-record integrity
Recent thinking.
All posts →October 21, 2026
Envoy AI Gateway Alternatives: Choosing a Control Layer
Envoy AI Gateway is now Agent Router, an open-source project for routing model and MCP traffic. This buyer guide separates routing alternatives from identity-aware control layers that authorize HTTP AI requests and preserve decision evidence.
October 21, 2026
FERPA Applies to AI Tools the Moment They Touch a Student Record
FERPA applies to AI tools the moment they touch a student education record, and the "school official" exception only covers your AI vendor when four specific conditions are met. Most edtech AI integrations were built before anyone checked those conditions against the AI step specifically. This piece walks through what FERPA actually requires when AI processes education records, exactly where the school official exception breaks for AI vendors, and the architecture that closes the gap.
October 21, 2026
AI Audit Trail Requirements: EU AI Act, HIPAA, DORA
AI audit trail requirements for the EU AI Act, HIPAA, DORA, NIST, and mortgage decisions. See the decision-record fields, retention questions, and evidence boundary each regime brings to an AI audit and regulatory review.